🚀 go-pugleaf

<SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191148457.497049.258140@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Frank Dresser wrote:
> > "SFTV_troy" <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio?
> >
> > Neither AM nor FM are currently broadcast close to thier technical
fidelity
> > limits.  Plenty of people are happy with the current mid-fi radio and
> > perfect audio reproduction, even if it were possible, would not bring in
> > more listeners.
>
> I agree with that.  What would attract people to HD Radio is seeing
> their favorite stations (like mine: FM97) multiply into 3 or 4
> channels..... thus giving more choices to the listener.

And more expenses for the broadcaster.


>
>
> > 5.1 surround would drive listeners away.  People use the radio for
> > backround sound.  People listen in the car.  A wide dynamic
> > range would go from lost in the ambient noise to the jarring.  ...
>
> Just because you have 5.1, doesn't mean you'd have a large dynamic
> range.  One does not imply the other.

Certainly not.  And just because the frequency respose of AM radio can go
from 20 to 15kHz, or better doesn't mean it does.  And FM radio is also
capable of excellent fidelity but it doesn't really happen either.

5.1 would be compromised in similiar ways.


>
> > And broadcast high fidelity has been tried several times.  Wideband AM
was
> > first tried in the 30s.  FM radio took a generation to get going,
despite
> > it's noise immunity.  AM stereo failed after a good sincere attempt.
>
>
> I would hardly call having 4 incompatible methods a "good attempt".
> More like a "bass backwards" attempt.  Had the FCC selected a single
> standard, AM stereo would be as popular in the U.S., as it currently
> is in Canada, Japan, and Australia.  In those nations, virtually every
> station is broadcast in AM Stereo.


Sure it was.  The radios were available, but people didn't buy them.  People
didn't buy them when they had four choices.  People didn't buy the
multidecoder radios.  People didn't buy the AM stereo radios when there was
only one choice.

Lots of broadcasters transmitted AM stereo, and it worked pretty well.  But
people didn't buy the radios.

I know plenty of people who never owned an AM stereo radio.  I have no idea
how the FCC kept them from buying AM stereo.


>
> As for FM, it was stifled by the AM corporations trying to crush it.
> First they delayed its introduction by twenty years via regulatory
> roadblocks (else we'd have it in the late 30s),

FM was on the air in the late 30s.  I have a Stromberg Carlson AM-SW-FM
radio made in 1940.  The FCC did change the FM band after WW2.  Many people
blame the change for FM's slow restart, but again, the FCC wasn't keeping
people from buying new radios.


> and then they tried to
> kill it by giving it inferior programs while saving the best stuff for
> AM.

The AM corporations didn't have any control over the FM stations they didn't
own.  There were independant FM networks but they couldn't develop
competitive programming.


>
> Point: FM and AM Stereo were stifled NOT by disinterest in high
> fidelity, but because of poor handling.

If public had a robust interest in high fidelity radio, then presumed poor
handling would not be an issue.

>
>
>
> > > your FM station suddenly multiply from 1 to 4
> >
> > So?  In most markets, most listeners are listening to a
> > few stations.  The bulk of the stations get by with less.
>
> Got a citation to back-up this opinion?  You stated it as a fact, so
> I'd like to see what study you are using to back up that fact.
>
> Thank you.
>

In my market, Chicago, the top 2 stations account for about 10% of the
listeners.  The bottom 15 on the Arbitron list draw 1% or less.  And there
are a number of stations which don't even make the list.

As far as I know, the story is about the same in every market.  Here's where
to check it out:

http://www.arbitron.com/home/ratings.htm

Frank Dresser